Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science. This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause--including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the "unmoved mover." Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God. Atheism, as you'll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Is it rational to believe in God?
Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.
Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.
The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.
A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.
Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.
But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.
If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.
There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”
Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a BigBanger.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/god-vs-atheism-which-more-rational

This is ASAPScience’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” – Debunked.
To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules
And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule
--
References:
1. ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existience”: https://youtu.be/-jxdIt2_WI0
--
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you understand and articulate the fallacies and errors in ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” (and of course Arguments from Improbability in general). Stay rational my fellow apes.

published:19 Jan 2018

views:247008

Master of Orion 2: Battle At Antares is another one of the old pantheon of strategy gaming classics. While its predecessor was arguably more foundational in the space 4X genre, It was MoO2 that polished, expanded and improved the features found in the original to make a truly great game that still holds up today.
EDIT: Made a nice big goof in this video, history-wise! MOO2 did not come out in 1998 - it came out in 1996, a good two years before Starcraft did.
You can buy this game here, along with the original: https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2
Subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRyuNpdX1JvvbHmgmCeehFw?sub_confirmation=1
If you like my content and want to support me, check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GeneralConfusion

Scientific method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.

Scientific Method (Star Trek: Voyager)

The premise of the episode is that of a group of cloaked aliens performing scientific experiments on the Voyager crew, and the effect the experiments have on the various crew members. The episode explores this from a third party perspective, and views the events in a manner similar to the medical experiments humans perform on lab rats or other animals.

Plot

Tom Paris talks his way out of a duty shift and goes to find B'Elanna Torres, who is working in a Jefferies tube. He presents her with some flowers and the two spend a little time kissing. B'Elanna is jumpy - she feels as though someone is watching them - but that seems to make it more exciting and she turns her attention back to Tom.

Meanwhile, Captain Janeway is receiving osteopathic therapy from the Doctor. She has been tense and agitated lately, and has been suffering excruciating headaches. Chakotay tries to give her a report on a powerful stellar phenomenon nearby, but she is too tired and grumpy to care so she tells him to just carry on as he sees fit.

Biography

Taylor was born in 1856 to a Quaker family in Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Taylor's father, Franklin Taylor, a Princeton-educated lawyer, built his wealth on mortgages. Taylor's mother, Emily Annette Taylor (née Winslow), was an ardent abolitionist and a coworker with Lucretia Mott. His father's ancestor, Samuel Taylor, settled in Burlington, New Jersey, in 1677. His mother's ancestor, Edward Winslow, was one of the fifteen original Mayflower Pilgrims who brought servants or children, and one of eight who had the honorable distinction of Mister. Winslow served for many years as the Governor of the Plymouth colony.

Taylor made his debut in county cricket for Staffordshire in the 1937 Minor Counties Championship against Northumberland, making ten appearances in that season. He made three appearances for Staffordshire in 1938, before playing a first-class match for Warwickshire against Cambridge University, although he took three wickets in the match, this was to be his only appearance for the county. Following the end of the Second World War, Taylor resumed his minor counties career with Staffordshire, playing intermittently until 1951, having made a total of 29 Minor Counties Championship appearances since 1937. Despite having not played minor counties cricket since 1951, Taylor was selected to play for a combined Minor Counties cricket team in 1953 against the touring Australians, taking a five wicket haul in the Australians first-innings.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The first edition of the encyclopedia was in eight volumes, edited by Paul Edwards, and published in 1967 by Macmillan; it was reprinted in four volumes in 1972.

A "Supplement" volume, edited by Donald M. Borchert, was added to the reprinted first edition in 1996, containing articles on developments in philosophy since 1967, covering new subjects and scholarship updates or new articles on those written about in the first edition.

A second edition, also edited by Borchert, was published in ten volumes in 2006 by Thomson Gale. Volumes 1–9 contain alphabetically ordered articles. Volume 10 consists of:

Appendix (pp.1–48), containing updates and additions to the articles in the preceding volumes;

Realistic & Rational SCIENTIFIC AIKIDO

God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?

Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science. This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause--including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the "unmoved mover." Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God. Atheism, as you'll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Is it rational to believe in God?
Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.
Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.
The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.
A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.
Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.
But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.
If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.
There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”
Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a BigBanger.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/god-vs-atheism-which-more-rational

This is ASAPScience’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” – Debunked.
To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules
And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule
--
References:
1. ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existience”: https://youtu.be/-jxdIt2_WI0
--
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you understand and articulate the fallacies and errors in ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” (and of course Arguments from Improbability in general). Stay rational my fellow apes.

43:43

Master of Orion 2 Part 2 - Rational Scientific Endeavours

Master of Orion 2 Part 2 - Rational Scientific Endeavours

Master of Orion 2 Part 2 - Rational Scientific Endeavours

Master of Orion 2: Battle At Antares is another one of the old pantheon of strategy gaming classics. While its predecessor was arguably more foundational in the space 4X genre, It was MoO2 that polished, expanded and improved the features found in the original to make a truly great game that still holds up today.
EDIT: Made a nice big goof in this video, history-wise! MOO2 did not come out in 1998 - it came out in 1996, a good two years before Starcraft did.
You can buy this game here, along with the original: https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2
Subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRyuNpdX1JvvbHmgmCeehFw?sub_confirmation=1
If you like my content and want to support me, check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GeneralConfusion

Science doesn't have to be rational

This is Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, atheist by philosophical inclination.
An example of something that isn't rational but reasoned through math and inductive empiricism is quantum vacuums. Quantum vacuums is space in the absence of matter creating 'quantum' matter that goes in and out of existence. Read more about this with Hamza Tzortzis.
This description is obviously thestically biased

Realistic & Rational SCIENTIFIC AIKIDO

God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?

Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science. This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause--including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the "unmoved mover." Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God. Atheism, as you'll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sourc...

This is ASAPScience’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” – Debunked.
To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules
And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule
--
References:
1. ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existience”: https://youtu.be/-jxdIt2_WI0
--
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you understand and articulate the fallacies and errors in ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” (and of course Arguments from Improbability in general). Stay rational my fellow apes.

published: 19 Jan 2018

Master of Orion 2 Part 2 - Rational Scientific Endeavours

Master of Orion 2: Battle At Antares is another one of the old pantheon of strategy gaming classics. While its predecessor was arguably more foundational in the space 4X genre, It was MoO2 that polished, expanded and improved the features found in the original to make a truly great game that still holds up today.
EDIT: Made a nice big goof in this video, history-wise! MOO2 did not come out in 1998 - it came out in 1996, a good two years before Starcraft did.
You can buy this game here, along with the original: https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2
Subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRyuNpdX1JvvbHmgmCeehFw?sub_confirmation=1
If you like my content and want to support me, check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GeneralConfusion

Frederick Taylor Scientific Management

Frederick Taylor's Scientific ManagementTheory is a classic approach in organizational studies and Ford used Taylorism more than most companies. Taylor's work over 100 years ago still influences our lives at work today. This video explores Scientific Management including division of labor, hierarchy, time and motion studies, and more. The video includes the Ford Motor Company as an example and extension of Frederick Taylor's influence.
Alex's Book (AffiliateLink): Case Studies in CourageousCommunication:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433131234/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=alexlyon-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=1433131234&linkId=6bfd9c333c786d16025c5a7c70a3ef4c
Frederick Taylor's Book (Affiliate):
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1614275718/ref=as_li_qf_sp_as...

Science doesn't have to be rational

This is Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, atheist by philosophical inclination.
An example of something that isn't rational but reasoned through math and inductive empiricism is quantum vacuums. Quantum vacuums is space in the absence of matter creating 'quantum' matter that goes in and out of existence. Read more about this with Hamza Tzortzis.
This description is obviously thestically biased

God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?

Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based...

Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science. This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause--including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the "unmoved mover." Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God. Atheism, as you'll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Is it rational to believe in God?
Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.
Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.
The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.
A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.
Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.
But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.
If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.
There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”
Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a BigBanger.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/god-vs-atheism-which-more-rational

Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science. This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause--including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the "unmoved mover." Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God. Atheism, as you'll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Is it rational to believe in God?
Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.
Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.
The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.
A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.
Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.
But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.
If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.
There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”
Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a BigBanger.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/god-vs-atheism-which-more-rational

Master of Orion 2: Battle At Antares is another one of the old pantheon of strategy gaming classics. While its predecessor was arguably more foundational in the space 4X genre, It was MoO2 that polished, expanded and improved the features found in the original to make a truly great game that still holds up today.
EDIT: Made a nice big goof in this video, history-wise! MOO2 did not come out in 1998 - it came out in 1996, a good two years before Starcraft did.
You can buy this game here, along with the original: https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2
Subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRyuNpdX1JvvbHmgmCeehFw?sub_confirmation=1
If you like my content and want to support me, check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GeneralConfusion

Master of Orion 2: Battle At Antares is another one of the old pantheon of strategy gaming classics. While its predecessor was arguably more foundational in the space 4X genre, It was MoO2 that polished, expanded and improved the features found in the original to make a truly great game that still holds up today.
EDIT: Made a nice big goof in this video, history-wise! MOO2 did not come out in 1998 - it came out in 1996, a good two years before Starcraft did.
You can buy this game here, along with the original: https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2
Subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRyuNpdX1JvvbHmgmCeehFw?sub_confirmation=1
If you like my content and want to support me, check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GeneralConfusion

Science doesn't have to be rational

This is Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, atheist by philosophical inclination.
An example of something that isn't rational but reasoned through math an...

This is Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, atheist by philosophical inclination.
An example of something that isn't rational but reasoned through math and inductive empiricism is quantum vacuums. Quantum vacuums is space in the absence of matter creating 'quantum' matter that goes in and out of existence. Read more about this with Hamza Tzortzis.
This description is obviously thestically biased

This is Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, atheist by philosophical inclination.
An example of something that isn't rational but reasoned through math and inductive empiricism is quantum vacuums. Quantum vacuums is space in the absence of matter creating 'quantum' matter that goes in and out of existence. Read more about this with Hamza Tzortzis.
This description is obviously thestically biased

God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?

Belief in God, according to atheists, is irrational, illogical, and dumb. Belief that the universe created itself is, they say, intelligent, rational, and based in science. This is simply false. Nothing can create itself. Everything has a cause--including the universe. That cause, argues Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, is God, the "unmoved mover." Belief in God, as Kreeft shows, is more rational than belief in nothing. Logic, science, and reason, support God. Atheism, as you'll see, is far more steeped in blind faith than is belief.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they're released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Is it rational to believe in God?
Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.
Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you’ll find that it’s full of God’s fingerprints.
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian.
The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement. And whatever caused that, must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an Unmoved Mover to begin all the motion in the universe: a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.
A modern objection to this argument is that some movements things in quantum mechanics -- radioactive decay, for example -- have no discernible cause, but hang on a second. Just because scientists don’t see a cause, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. It just means science hasn’t found it yet. Maybe some day they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That’s no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.
Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there is no first cause, there can’t be second causes. Or anything at all. In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.
But, what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask? Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old, that it had a beginning in the Big Bang.
If the universe had a beginning, then it didn’t have to exist. And things which don’t have to exist, must have a cause.
There’s confirmation of this argument from Big Bang Cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago and it’s been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it “creationism in disguise.”
Now add to this premise, a very logical second premise -- the principal of causality that nothing begins without an adequate cause. And you get the conclusion that since there was a Big Bang, there must be a BigBanger.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/god-vs-atheism-which-more-rational

Master of Orion 2 Part 2 - Rational Scientific Endeavours

Master of Orion 2: Battle At Antares is another one of the old pantheon of strategy gaming classics. While its predecessor was arguably more foundational in the space 4X genre, It was MoO2 that polished, expanded and improved the features found in the original to make a truly great game that still holds up today.
EDIT: Made a nice big goof in this video, history-wise! MOO2 did not come out in 1998 - it came out in 1996, a good two years before Starcraft did.
You can buy this game here, along with the original: https://www.gog.com/game/master_of_orion_1_2
Subscribe to the channel! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRyuNpdX1JvvbHmgmCeehFw?sub_confirmation=1
If you like my content and want to support me, check out my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/GeneralConfusion

Science doesn't have to be rational

This is Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, atheist by philosophical inclination.
An example of something that isn't rational but reasoned through math and inductive empiricism is quantum vacuums. Quantum vacuums is space in the absence of matter creating 'quantum' matter that goes in and out of existence. Read more about this with Hamza Tzortzis.
This description is obviously thestically biased

Scientific method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

The scientific method is an ongoing process, which usually begins with observations about the natural world. Human beings are naturally inquisitive, so they often come up with questions about things they see or hear and often develop ideas (hypotheses) about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways, including making further observations about nature. In general, the strongest tests of hypotheses come from carefully controlled and replicated experiments that gather empirical data. Depending on how well the tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may require refinement, alteration, expansion or even rejection. If a particular hypothesis becomes very well supported a general theory may be developed.